Thursday, March 09, 2006

The Short Pants Newspaper USA Today ran a story on fuel consumption by the military. Apparently the costs of gas is starting to have an effect on military operations.

The member of the junior press lists a few of the "gas guzzlers" in use today and explains that a Pentagon advisory board believes something should be done about the wasteful assets. The next thing you know, these advisors will recommend that the armed forces go to solar powered vehicles and helium balloons instead of gas and diesel tanks and jet powered planes.

To be sure, the price of fuel is rising, but does anyone think that the army fills up at the corner qwiki mart? Perhaps a quartermaster could answer the question. Someone with military experience might be able to say where military fuel comes from and if it's paid for at the going street rate. I wouldn't think so.

The main point is, would changing to more fuel efficient power sources save money, or cost more in the long run? Would the army be forced to use less powerful engines in their tanks? Would armor be reduced to increase mileage? How much more vulnerable would the troops be if they couldn't drive as fast, go as far and be as protected as they are with the current engines? During wartime should this even be a priority? Let's not get off track with winning the war and bog down on questions of can we do it "greener." The troops deserve it.

About Me

This site's comment policy:
As I believe in the Constitution and freedom, commenters are allowed to post regardless of their political or social views. Even Europeans!
Keep your comments on topic.
That doesn't mean that any silly comments without some idea of backup won't be moderated to make the poster look foolish.
ScottG